Which of these deals would you have preferred?

[Roy H.]

On the front page, there's a report that we had interest in trading Nate and a #1 to Golden State for Brandan Wright, who we then would have flipped to a third team.  There's some speculation that that third team would have been the Rockets for Battier.  Link.

There have been further reports that we could have had Anthony Parker for Semih Erden, but that we passed on Parker.  (I admit this doesn't make a lot of sense to me since we ended up with an inferior player in Pavolic, but that was the report.)

So, assume that those three deals are on the table (and there's no guarantee that they were).  Which one would you pick?  Keep in mind that in all three scenarios it would have been possible to end up with two open roster spots, so it presumably would have still been possible to sign two of Murphy + Pavlovic + Arroyo.

[Donoghus]

I like the trade that we actually did.

Gave up depth at C and a much needed backup wing who has position versatility.

We were playing well but, let's face it, we were thin on depth right before the trade deadline. 

The Perk trade brought in guys that could play right off the bat and addressed multiple needs plus made the future look a little brighter.

[wdleehi]

The Battier deal.  He would have been a better Posey.

[Chris]

This is a very difficult game, because I don't think those deals are realistic.

The Parker one could have been realistic, although based on what happened, I am not sure I buy it.  It was a pretty questionable report in the first place, that sounded more like a reporter jumping to conclusions based on the Cavs asking the Bulls for Asik, who is a better prospect than Erden.

And the Houston one doesn't make much sense, since they got a big man who was a lottery pick a couple years ago, along with a first rounder, and didn't have to take on a contract like Nates in the process.  

Also, I would be absolutely shocked if GS even considered for a second giving up Wright for just Nate and a pick.  It sounds like something Danny would have offered, but would never have a chance to happen.  

But anyways, playing along, I still would take the deal Danny made.  I love Jeff Green, and that pick could be a huge asset moving forward.  

[Roy H.]

Also, I would be absolutely shocked if GS even considered for a second giving up Wright for just Nate and a pick.  It sounds like something Danny would have offered, but would never have a chance to happen.  

Did you read the story on the front page?  Golden State's owner said that it was a done deal from his perspective:

We agreed to do a deal with Boston, where they were going to give us Nate and a first-round pick for Brandan Wright, and they were going to flip Brandan Wright into another deal. I agreed to it, for sure. But they pulled it back . . .

[Chris]

Also, I would be absolutely shocked if GS even considered for a second giving up Wright for just Nate and a pick.  It sounds like something Danny would have offered, but would never have a chance to happen.  

Did you read the story on the front page?  Golden State's owner said that it was a done deal from his perspective:

We agreed to do a deal with Boston, where they were going to give us Nate and a first-round pick for Brandan Wright, and they were going to flip Brandan Wright into another deal. I agreed to it, for sure. But they pulled it back . . .

I didn't see that...and I am shocked.  Who the heck is running that team???

edit: Ohhh, wait, nevermind.  I was thinking Dorrell Wright.  That was too much to give for Brandan Wright, who may not be in the league in a couple years.

Although I suppose it made the Houston trade make a little more sense...although I still think the Memphis offer was stronger.  I can't see Morey being very interested in Brandan Wright.

[CelticG1]

Yeah I like the trade we actually did. Especially with Perks injury that would have left more uncertainty for the playoffs and i think for the future gaining a a pick (instead of losing one) and picking up a young and upcoming player is huge.

[indeedproceed]

The Battier deal.  He would have been a better Posey.

Battier is a better fit at the 3 for us than Green (for our needs), and we would've gotten to keep Perkins. I like the Battier deal more, personally.

[2short]

The Battier deal.  He would have been a better Posey.

I had battier on my wish list for backing up pierce for quite some time but green is much much younger and will be (if not now) a better player.  Battier plays better defense but Green is a x factor sort of player.  I don't care what posistion he's playing make the other team cover him.
great great trade, i was shocked perk was moved but i did not think it was a bad trade at all for the team
the first round pick we RECEIVED is icing on the cake, I hope perk gets healthy and has a long productive career, if his knees end up an issue for the rest of his career the 1st round pick could be an even trade for him

[Roy H.]

The Battier deal.  He would have been a better Posey.

Battier is a better fit at the 3 for us than Green (for our needs), and we would've gotten to keep Perkins. I like the Battier deal more, personally.

I feel the same way.  It would have preserved (and actually improved) our defense and rebounding, while also improving our depth and shooting.  It's only adding to the team, without taking anything away.  I just see it as being less risky.

The Green / Krstic trade has higher upside, but the risk is also higher.  Of course, getting Krstic for the 3 weeks that Perk would be out has value, but I don't think that that short-term value is a big enough factor for me to prefer Krstic and Green over Perk and Battier.

There's no question that the Krstic/Green trade is better for our future, but for the short-term I prefer Perk + Battier.  Since this season could easily be our last realistic shot at a title, I'm all about maximizing the present.

[mgent]

What is shocking about the GS deal?  I'd say right now Nate is a slightly superior player.

I'd take Battier all day.  He's obviously not Green offensively but he's better defensively and a better fit with the starters.  Add in Perk and it's a no-brainer.

[CelticG1]

The Battier deal.  He would have been a better Posey.

Battier is a better fit at the 3 for us than Green (for our needs), and we would've gotten to keep Perkins. I like the Battier deal more, personally.

I feel the same way.  It would have preserved (and actually improved) our defense and rebounding, while also improving our depth and shooting.  It's only adding to the team, without taking anything away.  I just see it as being less risky.

The Green / Krstic trade has higher upside, but the risk is also higher.  Of course, getting Krstic for the 3 weeks that Perk would be out has value, but I don't think that that short-term value is a big enough factor for me to prefer Krstic and Green over Perk and Battier.

There's no question that the Krstic/Green trade is better for our future, but for the short-term I prefer Perk + Battier.  Since this season could easily be our last realistic shot at a title, I'm all about maximizing the present.

The risk is just as high with Perk. He was only back from a major knee injury a couple weeks and then injured his other knee not too long after. Now he is out for 3 weeks and no one really knows how he is going to come back. It would be a lot easier to assess this after Perk comes back and see how he holds up but I wouldn't have too much confidence that he would be able to hold up as well as everyone seems to think he would

[Tai]

The Battier deal.  He would have been a better Posey.

Battier is a better fit at the 3 for us than Green (for our needs), and we would've gotten to keep Perkins. I like the Battier deal more, personally.

Just curious, but what do you mean by "our needs"? What is our needs that Battier gives and Green doesn't? Could we have, for example, also used Battier at the 4 at times like we can Green?

[zerophase]

I'm a fan of the battier deal. Keeps the team in tack and just adds the much needed defensive 3.

[Roy H.]

The Battier deal.  He would have been a better Posey.

Battier is a better fit at the 3 for us than Green (for our needs), and we would've gotten to keep Perkins. I like the Battier deal more, personally.

Just curious, but what do you mean by "our needs"? What is our needs that Battier gives and Green doesn't? Could we have, for example, also used Battier at the 4 at times like we can Green?

Battier brings better defense, better shooting, better passing, more rebounds from the SF position, and slightly fewer turnovers.  Those are the things that he brings that Green doesn't.

Green is more athletic and more explosive, and is younger.  Those are the things that he brings over Battier.